House votes to prevent reporting system for assault-weapon sales

[Judi Lynn]

Source: Washington Post

House votes to prevent reporting system for assault-weapon sales
By James V. Grimaldi
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, February 19, 2011; 8:06 PM

The House voted overwhelmingly Friday to block the Obama administration from implementing a controversial proposal meant to give federal authorities a new tool to catch gunrunners to Mexico.

The proposed rule was strongly opposed by the National Rifle Association, which praised the House for taking the action.

The measure passed with bipartisan support, 277 to 149, which added it to a massive spending bill that would keep the federal government running through September.

The amendment by Rep. Dan Boren (D-Okla.) prohibits the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives from using federal money to require licensed firearm dealers to report multiple sales of assault weapons.




Read more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/18/AR2011021808128.html

[Edweird]

1. Good.

[FailureToCommunicate]

3. Did you forget your "sarcasm" smilie?

[Edweird]

4. I support the Bill Of Rights in it's entirety.

[AlbertCat]

5. I support the Bill Of Rights in it's entirety.

So do I, but what does this have to do with the Bill of Rights? It's not preventing anything... especially anybody's rights.

[bongbong]

9. Bill of Rights?

The only reference to weapons is the 2nd Amendment, which is about well-trained state militias.

[joshcryer]

17. The 2nd ammendment is part of the bill of rights...

[bongbong]

72. Yes it is

And the 2nd Amendment is about state militias. It has nothing to do with laissez-faire gun ownership.

[hack89]

20. I think you need to research the BOR in it's entirety.

it is all about individual civil rights - start with the preamble.

[bongbong]

73. Is that so?

Sounds like they could've just said, "Anybody can do anything they want", if what you say is true. You should probably research the writing of the 2nd Amendment. Here's some help for you.

http://hnn.us/articles/36395.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ILKiAr5Xtgg

Good luck!

[hack89]

91. So right in the middle of 9 amendments describing individual rights

they just decided to stick one that dealt with government powers? Is that what you are arguing?

The BOR is all about individual rights - it was explicitly added to the Constitution because it was thought that that along with a document delineating government powers, it was important that it was clear to all that there existed civil rights that existed independent the government. The BOR is all about fundamental human rights that all humans were born with - there is no way that a militia explanation fits into that construct. You have to stretch the meaning of the BOR beyond recognition to arrive at that point.

[bongbong]

98. Yeah, who knew?

So you're saying that the Founding Fathers thought just like you do; that you have a special way of mind-reading their intent from general themes. I should meet you some time to see how they thought about other things.

[X_Digger]

105. Have you read the preamble to the Bill of Rights?

The Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution.

The Bill of Rights was intended as a 'the government shall not' document- "to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers"- not a 'the people can' document.

Whose powers are being limited to prevent 'misconstruction or abuse'?

The clauses are restrictive against whom?

The government.

[hack89]

106. We don't have to read their minds

we just have to read their writings. You can start with the preamble of the BOR.

[bongbong]

108. Keep up that mind-reading!

Why on EARTH do we need a SCOTUS to interpret that Bill Of Rights? It's so CLEAR what they meant! You should try to start a movement to have any Bill Of Rights case thrown out of the SCOTUS, replaced with "Do whatever you want to do!"

:rofl:

[hack89]

112. You are not making a lot of sense here

I don't need to read their minds to know that recent SC rulings are consistent with the intent of the BOR. The RTBKA has always been intended to be an individual right - there are mountains of evidence that demonstrate that. Read Heller in its entirety - then go read the historical references it contains.

There has never been a SC ruling that supports your point of view.

LOL emotioncons are the entirety of your logic as far as I can see.

[bongbong]

113. Lots of evidence for your opinions in your post

So much, in fact, that I must've missed it all! :rofl:

[hack89]

114. I don't see any from you either - feel free to educate me. nt

[bongbong]

118. Free education

Here ya go!

Truth about the 2nd Amendment, including the long judicial history of defining it as only about state militias: http://hnn.us/articles/36395.html
Thom Hartmann talking about the Founding Fathers & 2nd Amendment: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ILKiAr5Xtgg
Federalist Paper #29 defining what "well-regulated" means: http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/fed29.htm

Have a nice day!

[hack89]

121. This is what the founding fathers really thought

read these various quotes and tell me that the intent of the 2nd admentment was not the individual rigth to own and bear arms.

http://whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/RKBA/2ndQuotes.php


Federalist 29 argues that a well armed populist is the best restraint on the power of the central government. It is therefore impossible to argue that the 2nd Amendment has anything to do with Federally organized and controlled military organizations. It has everything to do with armed citizens protecting their individual rights.

This view is confirmed by Alexander Hamilton's observation, in The Federalist, No. 29, regarding the people's militias ability to be a match for a standing army: " . . . but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights . . . ."

http://www.lectlaw.com/files/gun01.htm

[bongbong]

122. Huh????

"Federalist 29 argues that a well armed populist is the best restraint on the power of the central government."

I don't know what you were reading, but thats a big mistake. The part of F.P.29 that you come closest to (but not really close at all) is the one that says standing armies are bad, and we need to have state militias instead.

The quotes at the whatreallyhappened website pretty much all support the idea of well-trained state militias being necessary, which of course has been my point about the 2nd Amendment all along.

Thanks for supporting my points. I will keep the whatreallyhappened website as a bookmark to help point out the Founding Father's true intent about the 2nd Amendment.

[happyslug]

123. Do some research, the Second is Interesting

First, in the Constitution itself, it is clear that the Militia exists independent of the State and Federal Government, the wording of the Constitution reserves to the State ONLY the right to appoint Officers, organization of the Militia was reserved to the Federal Government.

The reason for this as two fold, during the Revolution Von Steuben wrote his "Blue Book" of Army regulations which not only dealt with HOW people fought but also how regiments were to be formed up. In Europe at that time, such books were classified as top secret and only parts of the books were told to enlisted personnel, and Junior Offices, Senior officers (Majors on up) had the full book. George Washington decided NOT to follow that policy, instead to publish the book so that the American Militia would form up on regular US Army lines.

The Second reason was the fear by Patrick Henry that the Federal Government would NOT organize the Militia or Organized parts of it that was loyal to it, but NOT the people. This was already happening in England, and Pennsylvania had NOT had a Militia before 1758. In the 1750s American and Britain went to War with France and Frances Native American Allies. From 1754 to 1758 the people on the frontier of Pennsylvania had no protection. To solve this problem Ben Franklin told the people on the frontier to form themselves into "Associations" and as "Associations" protect themselves on the frontier. In 1758 these "Associations" became the Pennsylvania Militia.

The above two historical incidents tend to be ignored by Gun Control Opponents and Supporters. It is clear (and this is supported in the language of the Militia Act, passed by the same Congress that passed the Bill of Rights) that the Militia the writers of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were referring to was the Militia of that time period, i.e. every white male between ages 18 and 45 (When the Post Civil War Amendments to the US Constitution was passed, it is clear Congress believed that passing those amendments meant there was not need to re-write the 1792 Militia Act, for the Civil War Amendments turned "white" to "American Citizens no matter their color").

Now, it is easy to see why gun control opponents would like to cite the above, but what about gun control advocates? First the 1792 Militia Act only addressed pistols in regards to Horse mounted troops (Troops that did NOT have ready use of any other firearm). As to 90% of the Militia it was to use what was standard Battalion Military Issue of 1792, the equivalent of the M16s, Machine Guns and Mortars of today. Cannon was mentioned, but it is clear Congress did not see to many people buying Cannons and this restricted it to those units that purchased their own cannons or had cannons issued by the State or Federal Government.

The Second amendment was NOT a general right to own a firearm, but the right to own a firearm that you could use in combat. Thus, in my opinion, the right to own a Assault Rifle, a Machine gun, Mortar or Artillery piece. You can even own a supersonic fighter.

On the other hand Congress did NOTHING in regards to changing the Common Law rules as to Gun Powder or a discharge of a weapon. I.e. Under the Common Law if Gun Powder blew up, it was a strict liability liability i.e. the person who owned the gun powder was liable for any damage if such gun powder ever blew up. Also if someone fired a weapon, and killed someone, unless intent could be proven (Making the shooting Murder) it was Manslaughter and neither the States nor the Federal Government changed that Rule of Law. Thus, while the Federal Government can NOT prevent you from owning a Supersonic fighter, the Federal Government can prevent you from flying it. Furthermore the Federal and State Government can require you to store it is a safe place so that no one can steal it (and if someone does, you are liable for any damage the plane theft did while flying the supersonic plane).

Thus, as I have said in previous posts, the Second Amendment protects someone right to own a M16 (If you want to spend the $50-100,000 dollars you will need to take the case up to the US Supreme court AND accept the risk that the court will rule against you and you end up spending the rest of your life in prison, that is the punishment for owning a non-registered automatic weapon and why no one has ever challenged the ban).

And I use the term no one has ever Challenged the ban, remember you must tell the Federal Government you have the Automatic Weapon and are refusing to destroy it OR register it. The Federal Government then charges you with violating the Federal Gun Control Acts and after trial you file an appeal which then works its way up to the US Supreme Court which may take the case. While the appeal is going on, you sit in jail. Unless something else is involved no one takes such a case up on appeal, the gun Charges are generally dismissed while the accused plea bargain on other charges (and one of the requirements of the Plea Bargain is no appeal).

US v Miller was an exception to the above rule, but it was an appeal taken by the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT not the Defendants. Miller had been lets us say part of the Criminal Element of Louisiana and the surrounding states. Miller was arrested for having a sawed off shotgun in his possession AFTER passage of the 1938 Gun Control Act. When he was brought before a Federal Judge, the Judge, on his own motion dismissed the case on Second amendment grounds. The Defendants were released (and was subsequently killed by other members of the underworld before the case was heard by the US Supreme Court). Anyway the US Supreme Court took the case and just heard from the Federal Government. No one represented the Defendant (Who was already dead). Furthermore, since this was a dismissal BEFORE trial, on appeal all issues of fact MUST be assumed to have been made in favor of the Federal Government (This was the same test the Federal Judge had to use when he dismissed he case in the first place). In that decision the court only ruled that since it was a factual issue if the Sawed off shotgun was a Militia Weapon or not, and all facts MUST be found by Juries, it was improper for the Trial Judge to dismiss the case, for a Jury could have found the Sawed off Shotgun did NOT have any military value, and if that is the case the Second Amendment did NOT come into play and thus the 1938 ban on sawed off shotguns and machine guns are constitutional in such situations. No Dicta was given as to what the Judge should do if the Jury did find the weapon a Military Usable weapon.

The following year the Third Circuit (Pa, NJ, Del and the Virgin Islands) ruled that Miller had made it clear that the Second Amendment did NOT apply to the ban on Automatic weapons (No appeal to the US Supreme Court was ever made in that case) and that case was used to "prove" that in Miller the US Supreme Court had ruled as a matter of law that the Second Amendment did not apply to the ban on automatic weapons. Reading Miller it is clear that was NOT the case, but it meant anyone one challenging the ban on automatic weapon had to go to trial, get a jury to decide the weapon was a military weapon, get convicted (For trial judge are NOT going to overrule an appellant ruling), then take the case on appeal, see the appeals court uphold its previous ruling and then take the case to the US Supreme Court, which if it takes the case, may then rule the Appeals Court was wrong as to Miller and reverse the case so that you can go to trial again. $50,000-100,000 may be cheap for such a scenario thus instead of someone taking the Federal Government to court to own a fully automatic M16, you get some civilian taking the City Of Washington DC to Court so he can own a pistol.

Prior to about 1960, only 10% of all Firearms sold in the US were Pistols, it is now 50% of the market. The big profits is in pistols not Rifles and Shotguns. Something like 95% of all murders are done with pistols. You have a larger chance of being killed by a baseball bat then a Rifle or a Shotgun (Look up the FBI Crime stats for exact numbers). Under the above view, the second amendment does NOT stand in the way of any ban on pistols (Contrary to what the US Supreme Court ruled recently) but can stand in the way of the ban on Automatic Weapons (But no one wants to take on such a case as explained above). This is not that much of a problem, given the low use of Rifles and Shotguns in crime (Including Assault Rifles).

Here is a paper I did in 2004 on this same subject, even has citations but I do NOT know if the cites are still active:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x54194

[boppers]

11. So, personal nuclear weapons, then?

Might as well jump to this end of the argument.

[slackmaster]

36. The line separating civilian weapons from military arms was drawn correctly in 1934

There is no reason to change it now.

[Jmaxfie1]

40. agreed

[defendandprotect]

13. Good --then pay attention to the opening clause of the 2nd ...

and not to the fascists on the Supreme Court !!

[hack89]

19. Time to move on - you have lost that particular fight. nt

[defendandprotect]

34. No -- right wing Supreme Court which gave you W has won that fight ... for the moment --

[hack89]

43. It is hard to imagine that it will be overturned anytime soon

In the meantime, with all the laws being enacted at the state level, the gun control crowd has lost so much ground that it will never get back to where it was. 1994 was the high water mark for the gun grabbers - the battle is truly lost, you just don't realize it yet.

[jpak]

46. Yeah, with all those right-wing Bush appointees in there - all our rights are threatened

yup

[hack89]

49. The fight was fought and won at the state level

here is a simple fact you need to wrap your head around - states can legislate a more expansive interpretation of civil rights. They are merely banned from restricting civil rights. While you have been blathering about the Supreme Court, the states have been liberalizing their gun laws. The Federal government is powerless to stop that.

[jpak]

51. Those state laws can be repealed - and they will

People want gun-free zones and cites and towns want to regulate where and who can carry a gun in publc.

Freedom

yup

[hack89]

52. If the people want all these things

how did all these liberalized gun laws get passed in the first place? You are not making much sense here.

[jpak]

53. The NRA & the Republicans

yup

[hack89]

54. So how do you plan to change the balance of power

so that the NRA is rendered powerless?

[jpak]

55. Elect Democrats and throw the bums out

yup

[hack89]

58. What about all those Blue states that support gun rights?

Democrats are already in charge. See Washington state as a good example.

[jpak]

61. Elect mo' betta Democrats - that's why we have these things called "primaries"

yup

[defendandprotect]

85. The GOP/NRA did it with rw elite $$ ... we'll have to put things right side up again with democracy!

Will probably take a lot longer than bribery!

[hack89]

56. What do you plan to do with all those state constitutions

that explicitly define the right to keep and bear arms to include self defense?

[jpak]

60. Amend them to include gun free zones where people feel safe from guns

problem solved

[hack89]

63. Will these gun free zones include faeries and unicorns? nt

[jpak]

64. Why of course - unless you fear faeries and unicorns - if so, we can banish them to Shangri-La

problem solved

[hack89]

92. I don't let fear rule my life or my world. nt

[jpak]

95. Some people actually fear the idea of gun-free zones in schools and public libraries

amazing

huh

[hack89]

107. That is not true.

they simply recognize that they are useless and have never saved an innocent life. You refuse to recognize that criminals are criminals precisely because they ignore laws.

[jpak]

117. No - people fear others openly carry firearms - that is the only reason to open carry

to intimidate

Open carry has no place in a civilized society

yup

[jpak]

23. Then you support my 9th and 10th amendment rights to gun-free public places

yup

[hack89]

44. To bad there is no such right.

Nope.

[jpak]

45. Those amendments were included by the Founders to extend ALL rights to the people, enumerated or not

It's called - LIBERTY

yup

[hack89]

47. Except freedom from irrational fear has never been considered a civil right. nt

[jpak]

48. Freedom from fear is our number one right

yup

[hack89]

50. I fear African Americans and gays

can you help me get them back out of sight?

[jpak]

57. Stupid logic - skin pigmentation or sexual orientation won't kill you

guns will

yup

[hack89]

59. You said freedom from fear is a civil right.

now you are saying it is not?

[jpak]

62. Racism and bigotry are not fears - they are sociopathic behaviors

People brandishing firearms in public places want to induce fear and intimidation.

yup

[beevul]

81. "Brandishing" has a legal definition.

"Brandishing" has a legal definition. Its also a crime - illegal - in most places.

Simply carrying a firearm, openly or concealed, have different legal definitions. In most places, neither are illegal.


Not that I think you would acknowledge any difference.

[jpak]

96. Open carry is brandishing when the intent is to intimidate political opponents

Not that I think you would acknowledge any difference.

[X_Digger]

97. The law says differently.

Feel free to have the legal definition changed, but until then?

:nopity:

[jpak]

99. When armed individuals show up to a public meeting as a show of force - it's intimidation

brandishing

yup

yup

yup

[X_Digger]

100. Wearing in a holster != brandishing.

Until you get that law changed, too bad.

[jpak]

101. intent - intimidation = brandishing

yup

[X_Digger]

102. Red = Green, yup.

Ground control to Major Tom.. how's the view?

[bongbong]

119. Agree on your intimidation point

And to emphasize it, and point out just who is behind the gun-lobby, just look at the history of the Mulford Act.

Imagine a conservative repig, a close buddy of raygun, writing a bill to restrict gun rights! Unimaginable, right?

But not unimaginable - if those guns are owned by Black Panthers sick of getting killed by representatives of TPTB.

It's just more class warfare, and a wedge issue to keep the rich rich, and the 99% poor. The NRA acolytes are corporate tools, very similar in function to teabaggers.

[X_Digger]

124. Thanks for reminding folks that gun control is derived from racist and classist roots.

You sure you want to stick with your position on gun control?

[krispos42]

104. As you've proven, it doesn't matter if the source of fear is logical or reasonable.

Fear is fear, after all.

[defendandprotect]

87. I fear Federal Reserve and banks --

[WatsonT]

110. You believe your "right" to not be offended

by other people exercising their rights is some sort of trump card?

God help us if that logic were applied to free speech, or the 5th, or any other right.

[sudopod]

74. Where's my nuclear arms? nt

[FailureToCommunicate]

2. F**king idiots!! Everyone who voted for that. The House is a joke now

Yeah, let's not put any limits or extra paperwork on gun dealers selling assault weapons...

[defendandprotect]

14. The house belongs to the NRA now ... isn't that what the right wing wanted? GOPs/NRA?

[jpak]

37. yup!

The gun runner lobby loves this shit too

[russspeakeasy]

6. Gotta be shittin me....WTF?????????????

[northoftheborder]

7. crazy

[earcandle]

8. This is criminal. Obama, do signing statement or veto new law.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

26. He can't. The Federal Government is still running on CRA and the budget needs to be passed

[jpak]

35. Obama can and should veto that POS - that is his Constitutional authority and electoral mandate

That whole bill is filled with RW republican horseshit

Veto

Veto

Veto

yup

[Name removed]

42. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[eringer]

10. Whatever happened to jobs, jobs, jobs?

Well, maybe the Repubs are pushing for gunrunner jobs (with the NRA's blessing).

[defendandprotect]

15. They need to sell weapons!! Gun lobby, gun manufacturers ... so those T-Baggers can stay armed...

a rifle over every shoulder at Town Hall Meeting!! Yeah!!

:sarcasm:

Just in case!!

[boppers]

12. But it would stop me from buying more than 60 rifles a year without being reported on!

That would totally put a dent in Christmas!

Oh, wait, this is implemented on a *dealer* level, not a *purchaser* level?

Nevermind then, I can just go to 10 different dealers, and buy 600 weapons a year (at least one a day) for my (ahem.) "personal" use.

[deacon]

16. Didn't they say that they were given a second chance and would show they

could govern and would be different and create jobs?

[beevul]

18. Good.

Word is that public comment to ATF during the comment period, were roughly 1000 to 1 against it.

[COLGATE4]

21. Now THERE's a surprise. How many of the 1000 to 1 notes were

from "click on this space" provided by the NRA???

[beevul]

79. And that matters how?

"Now THERE's a surprise. How many of the 1000 to 1 notes were from "click on this space" provided by the NRA???"

And that matters how? Clearly only people interested in voicing their opinion did.

You're complaining that more people who were interested in voicing their opinion were against it than for it.

[jpak]

39. Yup, the gun runners and Mexican drug gangs luv them some Republic gun laws

and the Bad Ol' BATF!

The jackbooted thugs!

:rofl:

[jpak]

22. Straw buyers will now be able to arm Al Qeda with AK-47s with 75 round magazines & .50 cal rifles

and law enforcement will be not know where, and who and when.

The NRA hates America

yup

[ProgressiveProfessor]

25. More falsehoods from you

yup yup

[jpak]

28. Officials Warn of Al Qaeda Threats Against Wall Street - Mumbai-style atacks

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/opinions/view/opinion/Officials-Warn-of-Al-Qaeda-Threats-Against-Wall-Street-6811/

<snip>

Officials Follow Inspire Stories Closely, notes James Gordon Meek at The New York Daily News: "After Inspire explained last year how U.S. government workers could be slaughtered in Washington's outdoor eateries, the FBI, DC police, and Department of Homeland Security officials fanned out to brief business owners that a Mumbai-style Al Qaeda attack is all but certain in the future."

<more>

yup

[fittosurvive]

27. Pitiful...just pitiful.

[jpak]

29. Yes - straw buyers acquired hundreds of AKs for Mexican drug gangs from US guns shops

and it is pathetic that we cannot stop that.

and even more pathetic that republicans and the NRA run interference for the bad guys

yup

[krispos42]

103. Yeah, 'cuz Al Qaeda doesn't have any of those right now

:eyes:

[WatsonT]

111. Pushing limits on our freedoms by appealing to our fears over terrorism

. . . how progressive.

Good thing they weren't able to get their hands on some semi-automatic versions of military style weapons on 9/11/01, then they could have done some real damage.

BTW: anyone who thinks the murders along the border have anything to do with the prevalence of guns is sorely misinformed.



It's prohibition. Not prohibition is a contributing factor, or is exacerbating an already existing problem. Nope, prohibition is 100% responsible for this.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

24. Hard to believe how much spin is being put on this

The BATF wanted to implement additional rules in certain areas for certain weapons over and above the current reporting requirements.

It should be point out that the BATF has a history of ignoring the expressed will of Congress and will continue to push this.

[jpak]

30. I think the BATF should keep tabs on individuals buying dozens of AK-47s at a time

from retail gun shops.

No one can safely carry and handle a dozen AKs at the same time.

Gun runners are pleased with this legislation.

yup

[ProgressiveProfessor]

41. Despite you fantasies, that is not only what the new rules did

Read up on the proposed rules before you starting yupping it.

[jpak]

69. Here's what the bill prevents

<snip>

The amendment by Rep. Dan Boren (D-Okla.) prohibits the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives from using federal money to require licensed firearm dealers to report multiple sales of assault weapons.

Under the proposed rule, 8,500 gun dealers near the U.S.-Mexico border would be required to alert authorities when they sell within five consecutive business days two or more semiautomatic rifles greater than .22 caliber with detachable magazines.

Semiautomatic rifles such as AK-47s and AR-15s are favored by drug-trafficking organizations fighting the Mexican government.

<snip>

The Gun Runner Luv Bill

YUP

[ProgressiveProfessor]

75. You are missing a key point

This is additional reporting on top of what is already required by the state. There is nothing to support the contention it would reduce violence in Mexico. What is inadequate in the current reporting scheme.

It is feeling good rule making with no practical input

Yup Yup

[jpak]

76. That is the NRA talking point & irrelevant to law enforcement. Give the BATF the tools to do the job

and stop asshole republics from coddling gun runners

yup

[ProgressiveProfessor]

80. It is fact and BATF already have the tools they need

[jpak]

84. Nope - they need to know who is buying large numbers of assault weapons from guns stores

yup

[ProgressiveProfessor]

109. That information is already available to them

[slackmaster]

31. They tried to sneak in a new definition of "assault weapon" through the back door

Good for the House for killing this.

[jpak]

32. Yes, the republic majority House has our security and safety in mind - not

but they loves them some gun runners

yup

[DU GrovelBot]

33. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

This week is our first quarter 2011 fund drive. Democratic Underground is
a completely independent website. We depend on donations from our members
to cover our costs. Please take a moment to donate! Thank you!

Click here to donate

[plumbob]

38. Boren of Oklahoma apparently does not realize that Mexico is not

part of his state. Some of those counties have pretty funny names, but not Mexico.


So glad that we have time for this shit, and we don't need to put together a budget for the year that started in October 2010.






Oh, wait.

[Ter]

65. Good

This violates the 2nd and 4th Amendments.

[jpak]

66. No it doesn't

yup

[Ter]

67. Yes it does

Even if you clearly hate the 2nd Amendment and pretend it doesn't exist, it is in as much clear violation of the 4th Amendment as the Patriot Act is.

[jpak]

68. Reporting gun sales is not an infringement of the 2A - The GOP is protecting gun runners

and Mexican drug gangs

[Ter]

70. The government is not allowed to know anything about any citizen

That includes tracking anything you buy.

[jpak]

71. So the government shouldn't know your Social Security number?

:shrug:

[X_Digger]

77. Good. The BATFE shouldn't do via executive fiat for long guns..

.. what it took an act of congress to do in 1968 for handguns.

[jpak]

78. Those poor put-upon Mexican gun runners!!11 - LEAVE THEM ALONE (sob)

Just leave them alone

:cry:



















:evilgrin:

[X_Digger]

82. If the BATFE wants this power, they should lobby congress.

They shouldn't get to make the rules up as they go along.

This is the same group who wrote a letter explaining how a shoestring was actually a machinegun.

[jpak]

83. Those dastardly BATFE jack booted thugs - how dare they investigate gun runners!!1111

"This is the same group who wrote a letter explaining how a shoestring was actually a machinegun."

Yeah they post some crazy shit in the Onion.

:rofl:

[X_Digger]

86. No seriously.. Here's the letter..

[jpak]

88. The BATFE was right on - the full-auto conversion moran broke the law

yup

[X_Digger]

89. *snort* .. a shoestring is a machinegun. Riiiiiiiiight. n/t

[jpak]

90. Full auto conversion - law breaking - yup

and

yup

[ileus]

93. Finally something good out of these goons.

[Doctor_J]

94. Part of their jobs initiative

Gun runners, gangsters, and funeral directors ill be in demand.

[kiranon]

115. One more reason to veto the bill. n/t

[fascisthunter]

116. fucking dumb

right wing gun nut rejects

[lonestarnot]

120. Keep that blood knee deep over there in Mexico. Yeah somebody is making lots of dough.